![]() | Rugby, Warwickshire was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have heard that either the spark plug itself or something in the spark plug was invented in Rugby - info can be found in the museum, and Alice in wonderland was written in Rugby, perhaps these two should get a mention. Also the time signal used to be transmitted in Rugby until a few years ago (now transmitted from the lake district) and during the war communication with submarines transmitted from radio masts in hillmorton/crick area
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.75.223 ( talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
i think somewhere it should be mentioned that rugby has appalling crime rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot and stars ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed some links yesterday which have been put back twice. I don't see why they should be included, and not any single other site that comes up when you google "Rugby". The ones I removed have practically no information of any use - I've looked through them and learnt nothing about the town. Should we also include any other local website with Rugby in the title? Why does a website called Virtual X-ton or Xtononline.com have an unimpeachable right to get free advertising on the X-ton page on Wikipedia, even if it has little useful info? I think the sites benefit far more from the advertising on Wikipedia than any reader benefits by reading them for research purposes. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. What does anyone else think?
V1459 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were following set guidelines on towns, lead in then geography, history, economy, politics etc. The reorganise seems significantly better than what the present layout which looks a mess, and will provide a basis for future improvements. Im lost as to were the trivia section is and why there is a trivia template.
I think the article should be reverted to the reorganised page and built on from there. Madhatter1uk 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent fuss about image sizing on the Image:Rugby town centre.jpg. It has come to my attention that there was substatial agreement that 'lead images' are considered to be a special case when it comes to sizing (see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8).
Now I consider the town centre image to be such a lead image, it was certainly intended to be such. Therefore I propose that the tiny thumbnail which it has been reduced to is entirely innapropriate, and deserving of a larger size. Thus if there are no reasonable objections to this I shall resize it. G-Man * 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the latest edits by User:SilkTork are an improvement on what was there before. G-Man * 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for [ this revert ? Andy Mabbett 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that a recent edit attempting to align this article with other UK geography articles was reverted, apparently on the grounds that the WP:UKCITIES guidelines don't fit Rugby. But they seem to fit other cities, towns and villages in the UK, so I'm left wondering what's so very different about Rugby.
To take one very specific example at random, there's a Notable inhabitants section, as opposed to Notable people, as recommended by the guidelines. In what sense is someone born in the town, but who never spent any significant time living there, an inhabitant?
More importantly though, I believe that this present idiosyncratic layout is doing a disservice to the readers of wikipedia, who have a right to expect a consistent presentation style. And surely the only point of writing any article is for the benefit of its readers? The UK guidelines are considered, plainly workable, and have achieved a consensus in favour of their use. If anyone believes that they can be improved—and after all, anything can be improved—then the place for that discussion is on the WP:UKCITIES talk page.
The editors' ownership of this article is doing the article itself no favours at all. And neither is it doing the readers any favours, as is plain to see from the above discussion about setting image sizes. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. There are probably many things each of doesn't agree with, but the end result is infinitely better than any one of us could have done alone. So I would very strongly argue in favour of reorganising this article along the currently accepted guidelines, even if there are one or two sticking points to be ironed out. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now some specific points which I am talking about here:
Well at least my version is a start. I was trying to better integrate the old structure and new. G-Man ? 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The image sizes on this article are (still) a mess; portrait-format images should be marked up with |upright
, per the MOS.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice in this article http://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/census-2011-reveals-rugby-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-warwickshire-1-4074238 that the borough population is now a bit higher than mentioned in the article. Would that article be considered sufficient evidence to update the numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarral ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rugby, Warwickshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been called Drugby before. Should this be mentioned? SourceChamp ( talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
User:G-13114 what is the source for it having gained a national reputation by 1701 (the start of the 18th century? SovalValtos ( talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
To return to the beginning, then, Rugby was founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, purveyor of spices to Queen Elizabeth I, as a Free Grammar School for the boys of Rugby and Brownsover. In the following century the School’s fate remained uncertain and in 1651 it all but collapsed, but by 1667 Rugby was acquiring a name for scholarship and it developed rapidly under a series of outstanding masters, including Henry Holyoake (1688–1731), who drew boys from as far afield as Cheshire, Kent and Somerset. Under him assistant masters first appeared – men who were curates of neighbouring villages. Numbers reached a new high of 245 boys under Thomas James (1778–94), who administered a new constitution secured by Act of Parliament in 1777. The School moved from the middle of town to occupy a manor house on the present site of School House in 1750.
In 1674, the then headmaster, Mr. Robert Ashbridge, commenced the school album, or register of admissions to the school, which has been duly kept up ever since, the names during the first hundred years being always entered in Latin, as is still the custom at our Universities. This point in the history of the school is worthy of notice, for it gives us the first definite intimation that the school had even then outgrown the scheme laid down by its founder, and had already gained somewhat of the position it was destined to occupy as one of the great public schools of England. In the very first year of the album we find the name of Vaux, from Cumberland, and also the names of others who were not foundationers, while before the end of the century there were entered names from almost every part of England.
There's also this from the 1905 edition of the New International Encyclopedia:
Up to 1667 the school remained in comparative obscurity. Its history during that trying period is characterized mainly by a series of lawsuits between descendants of the founder, who tried to defeat the intentions of the testator, and the masters and trustees, who tried to carry them out. A final decision was handed down in 1667, confirming the findings of a commission in favor of the trust, and henceforth the school maintained a steady growth. Under the vigorous administration of Francis Holyoake, headmaster from 1688 to 1731, Rugby assumed considerable importance among English public schools
How much more do you need? G-13114 ( talk) 22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: G-13114 ( talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Phlsph7 ( talk · contribs) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello
G-13114 and thanks for all your improvements to this article. However, despite the improvements, the article fails
criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs. Examples are the paragraphs starting with "Rugby is administered by two local authorities:"
, "The Borough of Rugby was created in its current"
, and "One of the last links to Rugby's rural past"
. Also: the whole subsection "Places of interest" lacks references. According to criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". I suggest that you add all the relevant references before a renomination.
WP:EARWIG indicates no copyright violation.
A few comments on grammar and spelling (created with the help of SpellGrammarHelper). Most are minor issues concerning punctuation.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Rugby, Warwickshire was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 18, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have heard that either the spark plug itself or something in the spark plug was invented in Rugby - info can be found in the museum, and Alice in wonderland was written in Rugby, perhaps these two should get a mention. Also the time signal used to be transmitted in Rugby until a few years ago (now transmitted from the lake district) and during the war communication with submarines transmitted from radio masts in hillmorton/crick area
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.75.223 ( talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
i think somewhere it should be mentioned that rugby has appalling crime rates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soot and stars ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed some links yesterday which have been put back twice. I don't see why they should be included, and not any single other site that comes up when you google "Rugby". The ones I removed have practically no information of any use - I've looked through them and learnt nothing about the town. Should we also include any other local website with Rugby in the title? Why does a website called Virtual X-ton or Xtononline.com have an unimpeachable right to get free advertising on the X-ton page on Wikipedia, even if it has little useful info? I think the sites benefit far more from the advertising on Wikipedia than any reader benefits by reading them for research purposes. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. What does anyone else think?
V1459 18:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were following set guidelines on towns, lead in then geography, history, economy, politics etc. The reorganise seems significantly better than what the present layout which looks a mess, and will provide a basis for future improvements. Im lost as to were the trivia section is and why there is a trivia template.
I think the article should be reverted to the reorganised page and built on from there. Madhatter1uk 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recent fuss about image sizing on the Image:Rugby town centre.jpg. It has come to my attention that there was substatial agreement that 'lead images' are considered to be a special case when it comes to sizing (see Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 8).
Now I consider the town centre image to be such a lead image, it was certainly intended to be such. Therefore I propose that the tiny thumbnail which it has been reduced to is entirely innapropriate, and deserving of a larger size. Thus if there are no reasonable objections to this I shall resize it. G-Man * 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the latest edits by User:SilkTork are an improvement on what was there before. G-Man * 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the reason for [ this revert ? Andy Mabbett 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that a recent edit attempting to align this article with other UK geography articles was reverted, apparently on the grounds that the WP:UKCITIES guidelines don't fit Rugby. But they seem to fit other cities, towns and villages in the UK, so I'm left wondering what's so very different about Rugby.
To take one very specific example at random, there's a Notable inhabitants section, as opposed to Notable people, as recommended by the guidelines. In what sense is someone born in the town, but who never spent any significant time living there, an inhabitant?
More importantly though, I believe that this present idiosyncratic layout is doing a disservice to the readers of wikipedia, who have a right to expect a consistent presentation style. And surely the only point of writing any article is for the benefit of its readers? The UK guidelines are considered, plainly workable, and have achieved a consensus in favour of their use. If anyone believes that they can be improved—and after all, anything can be improved—then the place for that discussion is on the WP:UKCITIES talk page.
The editors' ownership of this article is doing the article itself no favours at all. And neither is it doing the readers any favours, as is plain to see from the above discussion about setting image sizes. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture. There are probably many things each of doesn't agree with, but the end result is infinitely better than any one of us could have done alone. So I would very strongly argue in favour of reorganising this article along the currently accepted guidelines, even if there are one or two sticking points to be ironed out. -- Malleus Fatuarum 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now some specific points which I am talking about here:
Well at least my version is a start. I was trying to better integrate the old structure and new. G-Man ? 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The image sizes on this article are (still) a mess; portrait-format images should be marked up with |upright
, per the MOS.
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits
22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice in this article http://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/census-2011-reveals-rugby-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-warwickshire-1-4074238 that the borough population is now a bit higher than mentioned in the article. Would that article be considered sufficient evidence to update the numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarral ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rugby, Warwickshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It has been called Drugby before. Should this be mentioned? SourceChamp ( talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
User:G-13114 what is the source for it having gained a national reputation by 1701 (the start of the 18th century? SovalValtos ( talk) 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
To return to the beginning, then, Rugby was founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, purveyor of spices to Queen Elizabeth I, as a Free Grammar School for the boys of Rugby and Brownsover. In the following century the School’s fate remained uncertain and in 1651 it all but collapsed, but by 1667 Rugby was acquiring a name for scholarship and it developed rapidly under a series of outstanding masters, including Henry Holyoake (1688–1731), who drew boys from as far afield as Cheshire, Kent and Somerset. Under him assistant masters first appeared – men who were curates of neighbouring villages. Numbers reached a new high of 245 boys under Thomas James (1778–94), who administered a new constitution secured by Act of Parliament in 1777. The School moved from the middle of town to occupy a manor house on the present site of School House in 1750.
In 1674, the then headmaster, Mr. Robert Ashbridge, commenced the school album, or register of admissions to the school, which has been duly kept up ever since, the names during the first hundred years being always entered in Latin, as is still the custom at our Universities. This point in the history of the school is worthy of notice, for it gives us the first definite intimation that the school had even then outgrown the scheme laid down by its founder, and had already gained somewhat of the position it was destined to occupy as one of the great public schools of England. In the very first year of the album we find the name of Vaux, from Cumberland, and also the names of others who were not foundationers, while before the end of the century there were entered names from almost every part of England.
There's also this from the 1905 edition of the New International Encyclopedia:
Up to 1667 the school remained in comparative obscurity. Its history during that trying period is characterized mainly by a series of lawsuits between descendants of the founder, who tried to defeat the intentions of the testator, and the masters and trustees, who tried to carry them out. A final decision was handed down in 1667, confirming the findings of a commission in favor of the trust, and henceforth the school maintained a steady growth. Under the vigorous administration of Francis Holyoake, headmaster from 1688 to 1731, Rugby assumed considerable importance among English public schools
How much more do you need? G-13114 ( talk) 22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: G-13114 ( talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Phlsph7 ( talk · contribs) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello
G-13114 and thanks for all your improvements to this article. However, despite the improvements, the article fails
criterion 2b since there are too many unreferenced paragraphs. Examples are the paragraphs starting with "Rugby is administered by two local authorities:"
, "The Borough of Rugby was created in its current"
, and "One of the last links to Rugby's rural past"
. Also: the whole subsection "Places of interest" lacks references. According to criterion 2b, these passages require inline citations "no later than the end of the paragraph". I suggest that you add all the relevant references before a renomination.
WP:EARWIG indicates no copyright violation.
A few comments on grammar and spelling (created with the help of SpellGrammarHelper). Most are minor issues concerning punctuation.
Phlsph7 ( talk) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)